by Yhanthlei » 12 Jun 2012, 23:55
First of all thanks to everyone for an excellent game, and to Morg for excellent GMing.
I got my first choices of Turkey and Egypt, which I hoped would be a strong defensive position. Looking at the board I was optimistic about allying with the USSR, who based on some initial messages and guesses as to bidding I guessed controlled Rumania. Unfortunately my offer of alliance was met with a single word message with little follow-up: not a good sign. Initial diplomacy was focused largely on getting support into Bulgaria, and some of the stranger moves, like the Egyptian move into the Ionian Sea, were ploys to try to get this support. To my frustration this didn't happen until the second year, with both Greece and Rumania, and through Rumania the USSR, working to keep me contained. I have to say that this was shockingly effective at keeping a major power contained for fairly low unit investment, although I'm not sure that it was in the USSR's interest. This isn't a balance complaint, it's just something that caught me off guard. With Poland providing assistance into the Balkans and a hostile USSR and Greece and facing invasion from Italy, my alliances were more or less set, and I resigned myself to fighting off Italy while Britain grew. The NMR on the Egyptian retreat from the Ionian was a particular blow there, and I was kicking myself over that. Things continued more of less at a stalemate in the Mediterranean as the USSR fell to myself and Poland and Germany fell to Italy and Britain, and from there until the British-Italian mutual stab. That made things more interesting.
Fortunately, Italy, Poland, and I made for a cooperative alliance. I was especially pleased with Italy's willingness to allow my fleets access through the Ionian, both because it helped stabilize the front against England and because it left open the possibility of a grand stab against Italy if I ever thought that I could get away with it. The issue was whether to stab, and whether doing so would grant Britain the solo. I have to disagree with Italy's analysis, I don't think that I would have had a good chance of challenging Britain for the solo. Even eliminating Poland for a three way draw was a tricky proposition, especially since Britain's calls for betrayal among our alliance, although entirely reasonable on his part, were frequent enough to raise strong suspicions that Britain would still try for a solo rather than a three way draw. I came to the conclusion that eliminating Poland for a three way and still holding off could only happen if both Italy and I were entirely on board, and was only safe enough if Italy and I both thought that it was safe enough. Italy did not, and Poland agreed I to abide by the decision. If I had known that Italy was concerned about my trying for a solo maybe I would have pushed harder for a stab against Poland- it raises the question of whether Italy vetoed the proposal because of concern over Britain or concern over me, and only concern over Britain was relevant to me. Plus, stabbing into Tunisia, Rome, Naples, Athens, Kiev, Krakow, and possibly Belgrade would have made for a delightful move.
I very much liked the map, the dispersal of the minor powers added an interesting element. That was especially the case with far flung minors like Britain's Greece, which I think was used very well. It may have even changed the course of the game- if I had gotten into the Balkans earlier Britain and Italy would have faced a larger challenger later and Russia could have been captured sooner. I may even recommend that future Turkish players bid on Yugoslavia or Rumania instead of Egypt, given how important getting into Bulgaria is. Of course, better diplomats than I would likely not have had the problem.
Again, thanks to all.
Anglia in Heptarchy test game A